Explanatory note from the employee: definition, types, sample. Explanation

If there is a disciplinary or labor offense, the employer has the right to impose disciplinary punishment on the employee, but at the same time, he is obliged to request a written explanation of the situation from the violator. Based on the explanatory note drawn up by the employee, the employer can not only make a decision to punish the employee, but also assess the severity of his offense.

Why do you need an explanatory note?

In the document flow, there are a lot of different documents, including an explanatory note. It is used to explain the reasons for certain situations, actions or facts. The paper is considered by law as a form of employee self-defense. And it is precisely on the correctness of its composition and the logic of the presentation of facts that the subsequent decision manuals.

Often an explanatory note is required in following situations:

• various emergency situations affecting production;
• various violations of labor discipline;
• violation of production discipline;
• various disciplinary offenses;
• misconduct.

In particular, most explanatory notes are drawn up due to being late for work or absenteeism, or failure to fulfill official obligations. Here is a sample out-of-office note:

Design rules

Despite the fact that there is still no common unified form To draw up an explanatory note, nevertheless, the rules of document flow put forward a number of requirements for it:

1. The document is drawn up on a sheet of A4 paper, both handwritten and printed.
2. When writing it is used strictly business style presentation of information. The use of emotionally charged language when writing a document is not allowed.
3. Mandatory absence of obscene and colloquial vocabulary.
4. Brief presentation of information. There is no need to write a poem on ten pages; it is enough to briefly and essentially state the main points.
5. The document is always written in the first person.
6. The presentation of the event should show logic and a clear chronology.
7. The explanatory note test does not contain final conclusions. That is, you should not write at the end of the document: “Based on the facts presented, I consider myself not guilty of being late for work.”

A correctly drafted note, which indicates not only the facts that led to its writing, but also weighty arguments in favor of the employee, can mitigate the offense and, therefore, help, if not avoid punishment, then at least partially reduce the amount of the fine.

Required details

The explanatory note, like any other document, must indicate a number of details. These include:

• name of company, structural unit;
• the addressee, often the head of the organization;
• addressee, that is, the direct violator;
• name of the document type;
• registration number. Indicated in the HR department upon registration;
• document text;
• date of writing;
• compiler's signature.

If you take into account all the listed details, after writing you will get a document similar to this:

Composition of the text

The text of the explanatory note consists of two parts:

1. The factual part, which sets out the facts that became the reason for writing the document. For example: “On June 23, 2016, I did not go to work.”
2. Explanatory, which provides the reasons why the situation arose.

Dating Features

The note is dated by the date of its composition, and not the commission of the offense itself, which is very important. This is due to the fact that within a month after the discovery of the misconduct, not counting the time that the employee was on vacation (sick leave), it can be applied to it. The correct date of compilation serves as an indicator of the date from which the report is maintained.

Procedure for writing a note

When writing any explanatory note, you can adhere to the following order:

1. In the upper right corner, indicate the position and name of the person to whom you are submitting the explanatory note.
2. Under the addressee the position and name of the originator are indicated.
3. Below is the title of the document.
4. The main part sets out the facts that led to the situation.
5. At the end of the note, the date of drawing up the document and a personal signature are indicated.

Attachments to the note

Often, appendices are attached to the text of the explanatory note. These can be various kinds of certificates (for example, a certificate issued by a paramedic), acts (for example, a report drawn up by the emergency service during the repair of a water or gas pipeline), a relevant article from the media confirming the fact of an accident, damage to a highway, etc. .

The presence of these papers significantly affects the text of the explanatory note, confirming the facts stated in it.

Examples of an explanatory note

We invite you to familiarize yourself with typical examples of explanatory notes.

Note of non-compliance job responsibilities:

Note about being late for work:

An explanatory note is drawn up by an employee in case of disciplinary or labor violation and serves to protect the employee from the imposition of penalties or their mitigation. Compiled by the employee at the request of the employer on an A4 sheet by hand or in computer form.

In the process of labor relations in commercial or government institutions, an explanatory statement is often drawn up about what it is employee's explanatory note we will consider its definition, types, sample in today’s topic.

An explanatory note is an explanatory document that describes other provisions of the main document (project, report, plan) or explaining the reasons for a particular action, fact or event. Although current law does not provide a set definition of what an employee’s explanatory note is.

As a rule, the initiator of writing this document is the head of the company, law enforcement agencies or security service. Such actions have legal basis, which obliges employers to require in some situations a written explanation from workers about what they did (LC Article No. 408, 199).

If we look at it in general, then preparation of an explanatory note, is considered non-normative documentation that can explain the reasons for an action or condition, any inaction, incident or occurrence of a certain event. It is drawn up by an employee of the enterprise and provided to the manager or a person of a higher position.

According to the constitution, drawing up an explanatory note is the right of any employee, and not an obligation. At the same time, the employer is obliged to require the preparation of this document (written form):

Before entry into force disciplinary action(TC article No. 199);
before the issuance of an order that will relate to the recovery of a certain sum of money from the employee’s salary (TC Article No. 408).

In other cases, the employer has the right, but is not at all obligated, to require employees to provide explanations (in order to find out the position of a company employee in any situation or to overall assessment reasons for actions taken, or for making a decision).

Types of explanatory notes

Exculpatory when the note contains the reasons for inaction or incorrect action.
Explanatory, when an employee of an organization explains the actions of other persons, describes the circumstances or conditions of certain events that occurred for reasons beyond his control.

As a rule, explanatory concerns the consideration of the following aspects:

Absenteeism or no-show workplace in due time;
Being at work while intoxicated or of any other nature (alcohol, drugs);
Being late;
Violation of labor protection requirements and standards;
Theft of someone else's property, if the theft occurred at the workplace;
Immoral act;
Providing false information to various authorities;
Violation of labor discipline;
Incomplete or poor performance of duties.

Sample explanatory note from an employee and rules for drafting

Some enterprises use specially established uniforms for their staff. Despite the fact that the established form is only advisory in nature, approval of your version is carried out with the help of a local regulatory legal act.

But despite this, the document must contain several parts:

Actual(you must indicate in the appropriate field all the facts that served as the reason for considering this issue);
Causal(reasons are given and recorded in detail that fully explain the situation that occurred);

Each must, from an objective point of view, display all the facts presented that testify in your favor.

Compared to a memorandum, there may be no logical part in which conclusions are written.

In addition to what we have already written, the note should display the following:

The exact name of the organization where the employee operates;
Place of preparation of the document;
Information that provides sufficient information about the recipient;
The exact name of the document;
Date of writing;
Registration number;
A signature must be placed at the end of the note.

After reviewing the case materials, your supervisor sets a resolution to carry out the order. The storage period for this document in any organization is at least three years.

Perhaps these are all the main points that properly describe what an employee’s explanatory note is, its definition, types and samples of documentation.

State and law, jurisprudence and procedural law

An explanatory explanatory statement contains scientifically substantiated provisions from which a conclusion follows with necessity and probability. Expalance has two types of premises: the major premise consists of theoretical laws, principles and other general provisions of the legal science of philosophy, etc., obtained inductively. The smaller premise is formed by provisions testifying to the presence in the phenomenon under study of a set of signs of connections characteristic of the operation of the law of the principle of general connection indicated in the larger one...

Question 14. Explanation. Concept and structure of explanation. Types of explanations.

Explanation is a scientific procedure in which, on the basis of theoretical or empirical knowledge, the essence or structure of the phenomenon under study, the reasons for its occurrence and functioning, and other scientifically significant connections and relationships are revealed.

The explanation has three components:

1) Explanation (explanatory) contains scientifically substantiated provisions from which a conclusion follows with necessity and probability. Expalance has two types of premises:

The big premise consists of theoretical laws, principles and other general provisions of legal science, philosophy, etc., obtained inductively.

The minor premise is formed by provisions indicating that the phenomenon under study has a set of features, connections characteristic of the operation of the law, principle, general connection indicated in the major premise.

2) Expalandum contains a conclusion that necessarily or with a certain probability follows from expalance and in which the presence of a corresponding property or connection in the phenomenon or process under study is affirmed or denied.

3) Deduction and induction. Explanations can be inductive or deductive.

If a large expanse premise is formed by scientifically based theoretical principles in the form of laws, principles of law, and other general provisions, such an explanation is called deductive.

The inductive model of explanation is characterized by the fact that the major premise of the expansion contains a statistical law expressed in the form of a probabilistic judgment. (for example, the relationship between the material condition of the population and the crime rate).

Types of explanations:

1) The normative-legal type of explanation is characterized by the fact that the main premise of the explana- tion consists not of theoretical provisions and conclusions, but of the normative prescriptions of the current legislation.

2) Target (teleological) type of explanation. In the process of such an explanation, the task is to establish how much the means used or the results obtained correspond to the goals set.

3) Functional type of explanations. In this case, the major premise consists of provisions about the functions inherent in a particular phenomenon as an integral system, and the expalandum consists of conclusions about the degree of compliance of the activities of an individual component with the functions of this system, its ability to enhance or hinder the implementation of these functions.

in the methodology of science) - a cognitive procedure aimed at enriching and deepening knowledge about phenomena real world through the inclusion of these phenomena in the structure of certain connections, relationships and dependencies, which makes it possible to reveal the essential features this phenomenon. In the simplest case, the subject of explanation is individual empirically recorded facts. In this case, the explanation is preceded by their description. But in principle, the subject of explanation can be reality of any kind in any of its manifestations and at any level of its expression in the system of scientific knowledge. So, say, the laws of science, empirical and theoretical, can be explained; the content of theories of a lesser degree of generality can find their explanation in theories of a more general nature. general level etc. In the structure of explanation as a cognitive procedure we can distinguish the following elements: 1) initial knowledge about the phenomenon being explained (the so-called explanandum); 2) knowledge used as a condition and means of explanation, allowing one to consider the phenomenon being explained in the context of a certain system or structure (the so-called basis of explanation, or explanans); 3) cognitive actions that make it possible to apply knowledge, serving as the basis of explanation, to the phenomenon being explained. Knowledge of various types and levels of development can be used as the basis for explanation, which makes it possible to identify different kinds and forms of explanation based on the explanans type. At the same time, explanation procedures may differ depending on the cognitive techniques and actions used in the process of their implementation.

In the so-called The standard concept of the analysis of science, put forward by supporters of logical positivism and widespread in Western methodology of science in the 40-50s, was dominated by the deductive-nomolopic model of explanation formulated by K. Hempel and P. Oppenheim in 1948 (see: Hempel K. G. Logaka explanation. M., 1998, pp. 89-146). This logic model explanation was the application of the general hypothetico-deductive scheme (see Hypothetico-deductive method, Hypothetico-deductive model) to the situation of explanation. In this scheme, we proceeded from considering so and so as an explanans. pomological statements formulating the laws of science, and the deduction of knowledge about the phenomenon being explained from these pomological statements was used as a logical method of explanation. The feasibility of such an explanation was considered as a factor of confirmation, justification of the pomological statement (see Justification of the theory). Like any logical model of the real cognitive process, it had the character of a very strong idealization of it, exaggerating, firstly, the role of the laws of science as an explanans, and secondly, proceeding, like the standard concept of the analysis of science as a whole, from the opposition of the context of discovery and the context of justification, it could not take into account the processes improving knowledge during the implementation of the explanation procedure. As for the role of the laws of science (the so-called nomological statements) in the processes of explanation, then, indeed, the most developed form scientific explanation are explanations undertaken on the basis of theoretical laws and presupposing the comprehension of the phenomenon being explained in the system of theoretical knowledge, its assimilation into the scientific and theoretical picture of the world.

However, the author of the deductive-nomological model of explanation, K. G. Hempel, was subsequently forced to generalize it, formulating, along with the deductive probabilistic-inductive or statistical version of the pomological model of explanation. But the main thing is that it would be wrong to underestimate the cognitive and methodological significance various forms explanations that are not necessarily based on the laws of science. T.n. Pomological explanations are characteristic of theoretical, mathematized natural science, primarily physics, and in scientific disciplines where theories in the strict sense of the term (see Theory) with their laws are not crystallized, other forms of explanation are common. Thus, in social and humanitarian disciplines, typologies are often used as the basis of explanation. For example, the explanation of the characteristics of human behavior is given on the basis of the typology of characters in psychology, the explanation of social phenomena is based on the types social structures and social action in sociology, etc. The most important role in the sciences of living and inanimate nature, social and humanitarian disciplines, explanation plays a role by including the phenomenon under consideration in the context of the systems, structures and connections that encompass it. This is how causal, genetically evolutionary, functional, structural-systemic, etc. explanations arise, where the explanans are not theories or laws of science, but certain categorical schemes and pictures of the world that underlie scientific knowledge in a given subject area, say, an explanation any social or biological phenomena through the establishment of the functions that they perform in social system or a living organism.

A special problem that has caused lively debate in philosophy and methodology of science is related to the explanation of human actions and behavior in various humanities disciplines, in history, in social sciences, where one way or another we have to consider various motivational and semantic attitudes determined by a person’s mentality as the basis for explanation. In this context, the problem of explanation turns out to be closely related to the problem of understanding in the specific meaning of this term in the tradition coming from Dilthey, in which understanding as the comprehension of the mental prerequisites for the creation of a text or a cultural artifact in general is considered as specific method humanitarian knowledge.

From a methodological point of view, explanatory procedures cannot be reduced to the automatism of deductive conclusions. Already the mere subsuming of phenomena under common law according to the deductive-nomological scheme, it presupposes a certain constructive work of consciousness, which Kant called the “ability of judgment”, i.e. the ability to apply general rule, general norm in a specific situation. Real procedures of explanation in science, even those that can be represented in a deductive-nomological model, are associated with “building bridges” between the object of explanation and its explanans, clarifying the conditions of applicability general position, finding intermediate links, etc. The search for the basis of explanation where there is no ready-made knowledge under which the phenomena being explained can be subsumed becomes a powerful stimulus for the development of scientific knowledge, the emergence of new concepts and hypotheses. In particular, the search for explanatory factors is often a prerequisite for the theorization of knowledge, the transition from its empirical level to the formation of theoretical concepts, the development of what can be called primary explanatory schemes, which at first are ad-hoc (i.e., explanations of a given case), but can then be developed into a theoretical concept. So, let's say, Durkheim's explanation more murders in Protestant communities compared to Catholic ones, the lower degree of social cohesion in the former compared to the latter, which initially acted as an ad-hoc explanation, served as the basis for the creation of the concept of anomie, which is widely recognized in sociology, as a cause of social disorganization. In a situation where attempts to explain certain facts and circumstances within the framework of certain hypotheses, concepts or theories lead to a contradiction with the latter, i.e. real circumstances act in relation to them as counterexamples (see Counterexamples in science), the presence of such counterexamples - say, the contradiction between the planetary model of the atom and the stability of electrons in orbit - becomes a necessary condition critical analysis relevant knowledge and an incentive to revise it. This revision does not always lead to the rejection of this knowledge in the spirit of primitive falsificationism (see Falsification, Falfifiability); it leads to its clarification, specification, improvement and development. At the same time, it is desirable that the changes made to the theory or hypothesis would not be only ad-hoc explanations of the identified counterexamples, but would increase the explanatory and predictive capabilities of the theory or hypothesis in relation to other facts. Fouling of a theory or hypothesis big amount ad-hoc explanations are evidence of its weakness.

Thus, explanation as a whole is a constructive, creative cognitive procedure, as a result of which not only knowledge about the phenomenon being explained is enriched and deepened, but, as a rule, the knowledge used as the basis for explanation is clarified and developed. The solution of explanatory problems acts as the most important stimulus for the development of scientific knowledge and its conceptual apparatus, which indicates the inconsistency of the sharp opposition of the so-called. contexts of justification and discovery when treating explanation within the standard framework for the analysis of science.

The implementation of explanatory functions in science is organically connected with prediction and foresight. Essentially, considering scientific and cognitive activity as a whole, we can talk about a single explanatory and predictive function scientific knowledge in relation to its object Explanation, considered in this context, appears not as a private cognitive procedure, but as a necessary function scientific thinking, his cardinal installation.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

What is "Explanation"? How to spell given word. Concept and interpretation.

Explanation EXPLANATION is a function of knowledge, science, scientific theory, implemented through the logical and methodological procedure of explicating the essence of one object, phenomenon, event, action, etc. (explainable, “new”) through another (explanatory, “present”), which has the status of reliable, “obvious,” understood. Opposes understanding (see IS-THORICISM). Component O. is included in cognitive acts in all areas and at all levels human activity. The problem of O. was specifically raised and considered at the disciplinary level in philosophy and theology. In European culture, the function of science gradually became assigned primarily to scientific knowledge. Scientific argumentation must meet at least two requirements: 1) adequacy - its arguments and characteristics must be directly related to the objects, phenomena, and events that they explain; 2) fundamental verifiability (directly or through its consequences). In its logical structure, an argument represents a reasoning or inference, the premises of which contain the information necessary to substantiate such reasoning (inference). The premises are called explanans, the consequences from them are called explanandum. Explanance and explanandum are interconnected by relations of deducibility (following). O. is carried out both at the theoretical and empirical levels of the organization of scientific knowledge. O. in natural science is focused primarily on revealing cause-and-effect relationships and relationships, although genetic, structural, and functional dependencies can also be explained, but in any case we're talking about about identifying the picture of the determination of an object (phenomenon, event), its dependencies and conditionality. The more fully and deeply the conditionality is revealed, the higher the value of the theory. The most well-known and recognized in the methodology of knowledge is the deductive-nomological model of scientific philosophy. Popper believed that to give a causal description of an event means to deduce the statement that describes it, using one or one as premises. more universal laws together with certain individual statements about the original conditions. Likewise, Carnap argued that the explanans must contain at least one law of science. Thus, the essence of this model of O. is to bring the phenomenon being explained under the law. Moreover, deduction is understood here not as an inference from the general to the particular, but as any conclusion, the conclusion of which follows from the existing premises with logical necessity according to the accepted rules of deduction. From the point of view of K. Hempel, a general law is a universal conditional statement that can be confirmed or refuted with the help of empirical data, and O. itself is understood as a “hypothesis of a universal form” (reference to causes or determining factors of this event). The deductive-nomological model of O. is supplemented by the deductive-factual model (O. through an empirically fixed pattern, sometimes they talk about O. using a disguised law), and their generalization can be designated as the Popper-Hempel scheme, the essence of which is U. Dray defined it as a “spanning law” model. Special variants of deductive laws are the rules of empirical laws through theoretical principles, through laws of more high order, as well as O. within the hypothetico-deductive theory (method). Hempel also developed in detail the theory of inductive-statistical analysis, which presupposes the establishment of empirical relations between classes of events as its basis and treats induction not as a process of reasoning from the particular to the general, but as any reasoning or inference, the premises of which, to one degree or another, confirm the conclusion. which is probabilistic in nature. Hempel considers in this regard how special kind probabilistic O. - deductive-statistical (explanation contains at least one statistical law or theoretical principle). In general, any deductive O. can be interpreted as a special case inductive O., when the degree of probability of the explanandum becomes equal to one (100%) and, therefore, the probabilistic conclusion becomes reliable. O.'s diagrams may not be fully developed (presented), and then we are talking about incomplete O.'s ("explanatory sketches", according to Hempel). How special type O. one can accept the schemes of operationalism and instrumentalism, which presuppose the explication of the “unknown” and its (if possible) reduction to the “known”. Dray proposed (primarily for the analysis of historical events) a model of “a continuous (sequential) series of events (incidents),” in which O. is the filling of gaps in the series, the restoration of its continuity. To analyze historical events, Dray et al. proposed a model of rational O., the essence of which lies in the O. behavior of a historical agent (actor, person) through his motives, i.e. through assessing its adequacy to the situation (which involves “projecting” the researcher into the situation, “replaying” it, “re-testing”, “re-thinking”). For Collingwood, the goal of rational O. is to recreate “ inside» historical event, which consists of the thoughts of a historical agent. The main difficulties that rational O. faces are the following: 1) the presence different types rationality and the difference in their standards in different historical times and in different sociocultural strata of society; 2) the irrationalizability of completely human behavior. In this regard, Hempel proposed rational O. not through motives, but through the measure of following a system of coercive norms that predetermines the goals of action (action in accordance with dispositions). A special type of rational philosophy has been proposed in ethnomethodology. G.G. von Wright contrasted both the concepts of causality (the origins of which he saw in Galileo’s physics for predicting events) and the concepts of rational philosophy - a model of teleological (intentional) theory, the origins of which he attributed to Aristotle’s attitude to make facts ultimately understandable. O. consists not of indicating the rationality of an action, but the goal pursued by the individual (or his intentions), and is based on the theory of “practical inference” (in which one premise speaks of the desired result (goal), while the other indicates the means of achieving this goal , and the inferential judgment is a description of the action; in this case, the scheme can be complicated by introducing additional restrictions on the premises possible action). O.’s connection with description, narrative, gave rise to a number of narrative concepts of O. Thus, T. Nickles, proceeded from the fact that when explaining facts, we are dealing with different descriptions of them, which are difficult to transform into each other and therefore must be explained as separate . Hence the model of singular causal O., based on a critical rethinking of Hempel’s ideas. Thus, in O. the requirement for the presence of inferential connections that can be given through a story (an explanatory narrative indicating that the event was not unexpected, as it initially seemed) is removed. The so-called model images (with the help of models, primarily of a symbolic nature) are considered as a special type of imagery.